capitalism and the state as fundamentally one and the same.

Government breeds hierarchy. It does. The second you centralise all power into the hands of a small group and get them to control the broad mass of people, you get hierarchy. Hierarchy is exploitative and oppressive. capitalism is a natural offshoot of the state. A small group live off the toil of the vast majority of people. It is a system that encourages selfishness and creates class systems.

Governments never truly represent the people and are not (by definition) equal to the rest of us due to the fact they have the power (armies, law making abilities etc) . They take half our incomes by force, start wars for money, using false threats and perpetuating hostile and petty notions such as nationalism(all the while doing things that are against the interests of the nation, such as joining organisations such as the UN or the EU. This steers us towards world government) .

Governments bring death and poverty. They bring inequality and tyranny. As does capitalism. you could say they are the same.

rothbardian pseudo-libertarian crypto-fascism

I've kind of been looking for an alternative term for "anarcho"-capitalism. The more I look at rothbard and read the anarchist FAQ (on my list of links) the more I believe it isn't even libertarianism, but more a sort of decentralised authoritarianism. In a society run along these lines, the means of production and property would be owned along Private lines and tenants would live on areas of land owned by the capitalist landlord and he/she would control things and this means that he/she would have power over his/her subjects. naturally the landlord would be thinking about his/her interests and would therefore be more concerned about how much profit could be raked in . this means tenants would be under the subjugation/power of the landlord and would be limited in there free speech or freedom of choice by constantly having to think about what the landlord would want.

Plus, the landlord could be free to kick the tenant out at ANY time, even if that tenant would then be homeless and facing serious problems. And there needn't be any regulations protecting the tenants, because a)the landlord makes the rules, being the overall mini-dictator and b) have you noticed company heads often need regulations to do stuff for their employees before they do it, even when you would think it's obvious, you know like health and safety and things like that.

these rothbardians do in actual fact support governments if you think about it. These landlords with there competing private protection companies (which I forgot to mention are another feature- basically there would be people with guns who would compete with other companies to be hired by different landlords to be their own personal army, and we can see where the problems here) are govenments, or rather dictatorships.

now what does this remind you of? Yes. feudalism. thats right. perhaps without a central king and split into parts and territories, but basically yes.

feudalism.

Rothbardian-feudalism.

that could be my new term for these so-called anarchists.

wow. didn't expect to come up with a name as I was typeing this. Kind of shows what I ,meant yesterday when I said I use these posts as a thinking area.

minarchism, markets and capitalism

I think minarchism is really naive. Governments are instruments of control and exploitation. they never stay small.

look at America. It started off with small government, constitutionalist libertarian ideals and look where it is now.

After a relatively short period, it has devolved into the mess it is now- A hostile capitalist society on the way to full tyranny. It dominates the world and is a major threat (that's the American government, not the citizens- I feel compassion towards them. I'd love America to truly be the land of the free. it isn't.) to the rest of the world. It arms countries, sets up dictatorships and then starts bloody wars to overthrow them when they get out of control.

Saddam was put into power by the US.

so was the current regime of Iran.

I'm willing to bet that Afghanistan was too.

saying you want a small government is like if I had a malignant tumour and the doctors wanted me to have it removed, But instead I tell them "no,no just shrink it. I'll be fine!".

Governments never stay small.

They grow and grow and grow. They dominate and bring tyranny (government itself is tyranny)
and next thing you know, you have cancer.

minarchism is naive.

Also, the state breeds capitalism. State socialism (what an oxymoron) can only ever postpone capitalism.

You cannot have true socialism (workers owning the means of production and controlling it democratically) when there is a state. The state is a class in and of itself. this simply whittles society down to two classes. The working class and the ruling class- the producers and the parasites.

Capitalism dominates the word market, even though it is perfectly possible to have the producers trading with each other in a voluntary,free,unregulated way without being capitalist. To me, the ideal society would be made up of self employed workers,artisans etc coming together and voluntarily forming co-operatives, in order to carry out projects with the community collectively owning the means of production. decisions should be made fairly and democratically. No authorities, just everyone on a level playing field. Having some sort of free market is fine.

I do not mean free market in the Marxist sense. I am not a Marxist (goodness no), though I am a socialist. The idea that the free market simply expresses the underlying long-term transition from feudalism to capitalism is nonsense. it's just that if we are to have a market, then we shouldn't have tax,tariffs and regulation. After all, the formation of a free society necessitates the abolition of the state and notions of authority,hierarchy etc. I don't see economics and history in that sort of Marxian transition notion, as if this is some sort of progression, an evolution if you will. no,no,no. To me an evolution indicates something positive. Feudalism is bad, I think we can all agree with that, but was the move from feudalism to capitalism that bigger a move? its just the move from battery to free-range. It's still a form of exploitation of labour. its still essentially human farming. that's what governments are in a way. It's people farming.


Simply having people trading ,exchanging items, is fine. Not sure you could suppress it without coercion anyway, even if you wanted. it's just that an autonomous structure based on voluntary co-operation, mutual aid and workers self ownership are needed to make it fair. agreement between producers is needed for things to function. you don't need big brother breathing down your neck.

common sense and reasonableness are not artificial concepts. Profit (as in the gaining and hoarding of money) should not be the important thing. The natural form of profit should be the product of ones labour. Money is fine as long as it is treated for what it is, a token of exchange. Nothing more, nothing less.

Property should be based on personal use. Buying a building of piece of land and then paying someone to use it is wrong. Capitalism encourages selfishness. it is a parasite that makes its victims parasites themselves. obviously we can't go straight into Anarchy. a lot of people are in this artificial state of the mememe mentality. They are dependant on the state and are manipulated into loving their manipulation. We must ease the crutch away. We must educate them.

anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron

It just is.

Capitalism is exploitative and hierarchical by it's nature.

It exploits others, involves private ownership of the means of production, necessitating bosses and it creates monopolies . Anarchism is against all forms of hierarchy,exploitation and coercion. one of the main principles of capitalism is the making of profits above all else. it is greedy and manipulative and cannot exist without a state. It requires private property (which is theft), subsidies and protection by the state and therefore goes against anarchism. Anarchism is not just about abolishing the state. Abolishing the government is a very very important feature to Anarchism, but it's not the be-all-and -end-all of everything.

I can't stand how they (and some other people) assume that if you are a market anarchist, you are somehow automaticaly a capitalist. horsefeathers. it is perfectly possible to be pro-market but anti-capitalism. mutualism is a good example of how this could be done. it is my contention that so called "anarcho"-capitalists are esentially small-state libertarians (minarchists) who are in denial.

Inspired by George Carlin, I'm going to make a list of people or ideas I could do without. this will take me a while so I don't know when it will appear. I will not order it in any particular way just randomly. I may do another along opposite (ie positive) lines. whatch this space.